TGmb Draft Editorial Activities Summary | Status of Comments, Balloting, E-Motions

802.11 TGmb Editor Report – May 2011 Authors: Date: 2011-05-09 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Abstract • This document summarises editorial activities on the TGmb Draft since the last meeting • Status of Draft • Status of comments • E-Motions • This document is cumulative, newer data at the front – i.e., it will be revised per meeting to show updated status. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

May 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Balloting Status Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • Comments from 10000 onwards • The first recirc is LB1001 • Comments from 11000 onwards • The second recirc is LB1002 • Comments from 12001 to 12863 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

SB2 Commenters Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 (SB1) • D7.01 – 802.11v roll-in • D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials • D7.03 – 802.11u roll-in • D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions + Defects from D7.01, D7.02 & D7.03 • D 7.05 – defect resolution from D7.04 • D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 (SB2) • D8.01 Speculative editing of SB2 editorials/terminology Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Documents • REVmb DRAFT (members’ area of 802.11 website) • Draft P802.11REVmb_D8.0.pdf • Draft P802.11REVmb_D8.0 Redline*.pdf • Composite comments (all ad-hocs) • 11-10-1284-08-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-comments.xls • Comments assigned to / held by editor • For: resolution, editing or other action • 11-10-1455-06-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments.xls Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2011-05-09) Note – Ad-hoc Notes counts those comments with non-blank ad-hoc notes, an indication of some progress towards a resolution. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Editorial comment resolutions • Comment resolutions are proposed in document 11-10/1455r6. • See also document 11-11-0595-00-000m-SB2-editorials, which describes resolutions in detail • The group is requested to pay particular attention to the “Terminology – technical impact” tab, as this introduces some normative language. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Status of MIB • MIB compiles, but many conformance errors • Please see 11-11-0544-00-000m-fixing-the-mib • Please also be aware that the 802.11 MEC process proposal (see 11-11-0615-00-0000-WG802.11 MEC process) assumes we will continue to maintain the MIB, and attempts to avoid some of the errors of the past and will require the MIB to compile prior to sponsor ballot. • Telecon on 6 May 2011 shows that there is inadequate support for either deleting the MIB, partitioning it, or addressing compliance issues. So the status quo will be preserved, with a warning. • Add the following to the DESCRIPTION at 1842.37 (D8.0): • “Note that not all objects within this MIB are referenced by a group, and not all groups are referenced by a MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement. Some existing groups and the dot11Compliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE have been modified since the previous revision of this standard. Implementations should not claim compliance to dot11Compliance.” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion 1 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-06-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials and Trivial Technical” tabs. • 40 Agree, 17 Principle, 8 Disagree • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion 2 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-06-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Terminology” tab. • 31 Agree, 10 Principle, 1 Disagree • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion 3 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-06-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Terminology – may be a” tab. • 104 Agree, 268 Principle, 108 Disagree • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion 4 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-06-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Terminology – technical impact” tab. • 41 Agree, 19 Principle, 14 Disagree • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion • Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D8.0, • Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 9.0 incorporating these resolutions and, • Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D9.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

March 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • Comments from 10000 onwards • The first recirc is LB1001 • Comments from 11000 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2011-03-10) ** This was the comment to which two comments were attached. As a placeholder, it doesn’t need approval of TGmb as the comments attached appear separately in the database. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 • D7.01 – 802.11v roll-in • D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials • D7.03 – 802.11u roll-in • D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions + Defects from D7.01, D7.02 & D7.03 • D 7.05?? – defect resolution from D7.04 • D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

802.11v Roll-in Status • D7.01 contains .11v • D7.01 has completed review by volunteers from former TGv (71 defects were reported) • Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 • There are a significant number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

802.11u Roll-in Status • Our current Plan of Record shows rolling in 802.11u in March. However, .11v roll-in went quicker than expected, and IEEE-SA publication editing for .11u completed earlier than expected • D7.03 contains .11u. D7.03 is currently in review by volunteers from former TGu. • There are a number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. • Editorial Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning • As indicated earlier, 802.11v and 802.11u will be in D8. • Experience from .11v suggests 2 weeks roll-in duration (not including review) is reasonable for.11s. • An adjusted plan of record has been produced taking this into account – see later • Shows completing comment resolution In Oct • Dependent on .11s being available for editing at the start of June Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning – D8.0 release • The plan discussed on the last telecon (and reproduced in the next slide) shows a 2-week period of editing & review before D8.0 is ready to ballot. There’s a lot of new material in D8.0, and I think we need to allow as much time as possible for ballot and comment resolution prep before the next meeting. • I propose to try and accelerate the availability of D8.0 to Thursday 24th March. • Mon & Tue – Edit • Wed – Review • Thu – Final edits, Chair requests IEEE-SA to open ballot • Fri – Ballot opens • So I need volunteers who will commit to deliver an on-time review over a period of 24 hours Wed next week. I’m anticipating 2 hours work per reviewer. • Please volunteer now & Jon please record and send list to Adrian. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning – Detail Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Editorial comment resolutions • Comment resolutions are proposed in document 11-10/1455r5. • The Editor requests TGmb to review CID 11211, which has related comments: 11213 (Gen) and 11215 (MAC). Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

CID 11211 • Comment: In SB1 it was pointed out that parameter names before this point (6.3.2.2.2) are lower case, while after this are in initial caps. The CRC response was that changing was too much work without benefit. However, this standard depends heavily on capitalization: "priority" is the name of the concept, while "Priority" is the name of a field. So inconsistency in capitalization provides a serious detriment to the utility of this standard. • Proposed Change: If no one else has time to work on this, it appears that I will not have a job after March 31, so I will have the time to buy a copy of FrameMaker, learn how to use it, and make the changes sometime in April. P.S., the implementer of this standard doesn't care about how hard it is to integrate amendments that had been erroneously approved by the WG. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

CID 11211 (discussion) • I see some benefit in doing what the commenter requests, but I also see costs. • The proposed changes open up the standard to further comments on changed text, because names of many items in clause 6 (in this comment) and clause 8 (in other comments) would change. • The proposed “let me edit the document” resolution provides discretion above and beyond that exercised thus far by your technical editor. The practicalities of making this work (i.e., new person editing, not particularly familiar with WG802.11 style, scheduling/planning) have not been determined and introduce schedule risk. • If this group disagrees with my resolution (next slide), I would suggest the best practical alternative is to request the commenter to provide a “mapping table” of old to new names that the editor would action. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

CID 11211 (resolution) • Proposed Resolution: DISAGREE (EDITOR: 2011-02-22 10:39:51Z) - There is no particular rule observable in the draft about whether these parameters should be lower case, InitialCaps, UPPER_CASE_WITH_UNDERSCORES, or something else. The IEEE-SA has no such rule, and the material cited has been through multiple rounds of IEEE-SA professional editing, from which we may determine that they do not regard such consistency to be necessary. While it is the commenter's preference to strive for consistency, the material cited is not incorrect and transgresses no IEEE-SA rule of style. Further, the substantial number of changes to be made would open up much of Clause 6 to further comment. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion 1 • Approve comment resolutions in 11-10-1455-05-000m-revmb-sponsor-ballot-editor-comments on the “Editorials & Terminology” tabs. • 24 Agree, 14 Principle, 4 Disagree, 2 Scope, 1 Unresolvable • Moved: • Seconded: Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

E-motion 2 (To be brought at a not inappropriate and suitably non-stationary juncture) • Having approved comment resolutions for all of the comments received from the initial Sponsor Ballot on P802.11REVmb D7.0, • Instruct the editor to prepare Draft 8.0 incorporating these resolutions and, • Approve a 15 day Sponsor Recirculation Ballot asking the question “Should P802.11REVmb D8.0 be forwarded to RevCom?” Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

February 2011For TGmb Telecon on 25 Feb 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • Comments from 10000 onwards • The first recirc is LB1001 • Comments from 11000 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2011-02-24) ** This was the comment to which two comments were attached. As a placeholder, it doesn’t need approval of TGmb as the comments attached appear separately in the database. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comments by Commenter Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 • D7.01 – 802.11v roll-in • D7.02 – Speculative editing of LB1001 editorials • D7.03 – 802.11u roll-in • D7.04 – Editing of remaining approved comment resolutions • D 7.05?? – defect resolution from D7.04 • D8.0 – Sponsor Recirc #2 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

802.11v Roll-in Status • D7.01 contains .11v • D7.01 is currently in review by volunteers from former TGv • Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 • There are a significant number of Editor’s Notes highlighting issues that need to be addressed. Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

802.11u Roll-in Status • Our current Plan of Record shows rolling in 802.11u in March. • However, .11v roll-in went quicker than expected, and IEEE-SA publication editing for .11u completed earlier than expected • Work on the 802.11u roll-in has just started • D7.03 will contain .11v – expected during March 802.11 session. • Editorial Defects will be resolved in a revision prior to D8.0 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning • As indicated earlier, 802.11v and 802.11u will be in D8. • Experience from .11v suggests 2 weeks roll-in duration (not including review) is reasonable for .11u and .11s. • An adjusted plan of record has been produced taking this into account – see next page for detail. • Shows completing comment resolution In Oct • Dependent on .11s being available for editing at the start of June Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Planning – Detail Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

January 2011 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Numbering • Keeping all comments from WG and Sponsor ballots in the same spreadsheet. • The initial sponsor ballot is shown as LB 1000 • the first recirc will be 1001 • The sponsor ballot comments are numbered from 10001 onwards • The next set will be 11001 onwards • Review comments from .11p roll-in are numbered LB=0, Draft=6.01, CID=10500 onwards Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

Comment Status (2011-01-13) Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

REVmb Draft Numbering History (part) • D1.0, 2009-05 – balloted as LB149 • D2.0, 2009-12 – completion of LB149 edits. Balloted version. • D3.0 – balloted as LB162 • D3.01 – speculative editing of LB162 editorials • D3.02 – editing of LB162 technical • D4.0 – for ballot • D4.01 – Speculative editing of LB163 editorials • D5.0 – for ballot • D6.0 – first sponsor ballot, includes MEC change • D6.01 – includes TGp roll-in. Reviewed in the TG. • D6.02 – includes TGz roll-in • D6.03 – Speculative resolution of editorial + defects resolved from D6.02 review • D6.04 – implementation of LB1000 technicals • D6.05 – implementation of approved D6.01 roll-in resolutions + defects resolved from D6.03 & D6.04 review. • (future) D6.06 – Implementation of remaining LB1000 comment resolutions for editorial panel review • D7.0 – Sponsor recirc #1 Adrian Stephens, Intel Corporation

TGmb Draft Editorial Activities Summary | Status of Comments, Balloting, E-Motions